Women’s lives devastated by 'catastrophic' state pension age rise, Court of Appeal hears

Women’s lives have been devastated by the “catastrophic” rise in the state pension age, the Court of Appeal has heard.

Almost four million women were affected by increasing the state pension age from 60 to 66 for women born after March 1950.

BackTo60, a campaign group calling for full restitution for women affected by the changes, lost its landmark High Court battle after taking the government to court over the state pension age hike but appealed the ruling on Tuesday.

Julie Delve and Karen Glynn, two women hit by the pension age rise who took the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to court back in 2019, have now launched a challenge at the Court of Appeal.

The women, who are both in their sixties and supported by BackTo60, argue increasing their pension age unlawfully discriminated against them on the basis of age and sex, and they were not provided with sufficient notice of the pension overhaul.

Michael Mansfield QC, representing the women, said the impact of the state pension age change has been “dramatic”, adding: “This has been catastrophic for this group.”

Speaking at a virtual Court of Appeal hearing on Tuesday morning, Mr Mansfield told three senior judges: “We have a group of essentially, economically and emotionally, disenfranchised women. So it is against that background that we do submit that there are grounds for discrimination.”

Mr Mansfield said that alongside the “economic, almost poverty line existence” that they have to face, there is also the “psychological mental stress placed upon them“ which reduces many people unable to even do what they need to do to ”make ends meet”.

He referred to “makeshift measures” that women may have to resort to in order to survive, such as selling their home or using up savings.

Mr Mansfield described the six-year wait that women have from 60 to 66 as a “considerable“ period of time which translates to a “considerable” sum of money – around the £8,000 mark if it is a full pension, leading to losses that could run up to about £50,000.

Mr Mansfield said it is not uncommon for women in this age group to face “straitened circumstances”, particularly for single women who have had low-paid, part-time jobs.

He also said another common feature for women in this age group is for them to be responsible for their elderly or infirm parents.

Mr Mansfield pointed out that men born in 1953 were offered auto credit, a scheme which he said survived until recently and was availed of by approximately four million men.

In his written submissions, Mr Mansfield said the appellants are women born in the 1950s who “seek to challenge both the legislative measures which raised the age at which they can receive their state pensions and the inadequate notice they and other affected women received of the changes”.

He added: “The legislation equalises the state pension age of men and women. Whilst a woman born before April 6 1950 continued to receive her state pension at age 60, the state pension age for women born after that date was raised progressively, to 65 initially for those born after October 5 1954.

“Subsequently, the pension age for both men and women was raised from 65 to 66, 67 or 68 depending on age.”

Mr Mansfield’s submissions say Ms Delve expected to receive her state pension at age 60 in 2018, but as a result of the changes, she will not receive it until she is 66, in 2024.

Ms Glynn expected to receive her state pension at age 60 in 2016, but will not now receive it until she is 66 in 2022.

Joanne Welch, founder and campaign director at BackTo60, said: ”There is no doubt in our minds that this is discrimination and we demand the return of our earned dues.”

The state pension age rise was accelerated in 2010 and saw women reach parity with men, at 65, in 2018.

The United Nations has previously said women hit by the state pension age change are at increased risk of “poverty, homelessness and financial hardship” as a result – with many such women having been made to work through the coronavirus crisis despite being at risk of severe complications from the life-threatening illness due to their age.

Last October, Lord Justice Irwin and Mrs Justice Whipple dismissed the women’s claim ”on all grounds“.

The court rejected the claimants’ argument that the policy was discriminatory based on age, adding that, even if it was, “it could be justified on the facts”, and also dismissed their contention that they were not given adequate notice of the changes.

The appeal is due to continue on Wednesday and the judges are expected to give their ruling at a later date.

Earlier in the month, The Independent reported the number of women aged 60 and over claiming universal credit and out of work benefits increased by almost five times in the last six years – with campaigners attributing this sharp rise to pension age reform.

The rise of women making claims for such benefits – which soared from 7,578 to 36,527 between 2013 and 2019 – was almost three times more than men who are aged 60 and over.

A major report by King’s College London which came out in May found adjustments made to the state pension age have triggered a 30 per cent rise in the likelihood of experiencing depressive symptoms for women doing physically and psychosocially onerous jobs.

Researchers said these roles were defined by the mixture of high demands and low levels of control – explaining around a third of women work in these sorts of positions, which involve toiling away in restaurants, sales, personal care, housekeeping, machine operation and cleaning.

Additional reporting by Press Association